§Why CasetextPricing

ELK HILLS POWER v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (Mihara and Miller, JJ., justices pro tempore; Baxter and Werdegar, JJ., not participating)

Appellant’s Petition for Review

37 Cited authorities

  1. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization

    19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 640 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”

  2. D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners

    11 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 1,063 times
    In D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners, 11 Cal.3d 1, 112 Cal.Rptr. 786, 520 P.2d 10 (Cal. 1974), the state Supreme Court held that the 1962 initiative Act's prohibition of future licensing of osteopaths violated the Equal Protection Clause of both the federal and state constitutions, because the state could not demonstrate a rational relation to a legitimate governmental objective.

  3. Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partn.

    42 Cal.4th 1158 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 286 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer may be liable for retaliation under FEHA, "but nonemployer individual may not be held personally liable for their role in that retaliation"

  4. Mejia v. Reed

    31 Cal.4th 657 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 310 times
    Holding that under Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04, a transfer can be fraudulent "both as to present and future creditors"

  5. Shamsian v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    107 Cal.App.4th 967 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 196 times
    Noting that the one year statute of limitations period under § 340 applies to causes of action that require an award without regard to plaintiff's actual loss

  6. Woods v. Young

    53 Cal.3d 315 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 207 times
    Holding statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions is one year and 90 days when the plaintiff sends the physician-defendant a 90-day notice of intent to sue

  7. Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Orange County Employees Retirement System

    6 Cal.4th 821 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 183 times

    Docket No. S029178. December 23, 1993. Appeal from Superior Court of Orange County, No. 660703, Greer Stroud, Referee. COUNSEL Helsing Wray, Mark Cain, Mark Wray and Duffern H. Helsing for Plaintiff and Appellant. Thomas W. Newton, Renee C. Allison, Harold W. Fuson, Jr., Judith L. Fanshaw, Debra Foust Bruns, Pillsbury, Madison Sutro, Edward P. Davis, Jr., Judy Alexander, Cooper, White Cooper, James M. Wagstaffe and Martin Kassman as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Terry C. Andrus

  8. Silicon Valley Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority

    44 Cal.4th 431 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 120 times
    Concluding assessment was invalid for failure to meet the requirements of Proposition 218 but not addressing the validity of the assessment district

  9. Copley Press v. Sup. Court

    39 Cal.4th 1272 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 119 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that newspaper was not entitled to records relating to peace officer's administrative appeal of disciplinary matter under California Public Records Act

  10. Lennane v. Franchise Tax Bd.

    9 Cal.4th 263 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 132 times
    Investigating a statute's "enactment history"

  11. Section 2

    Cal. Const. art. XIII § 2   Cited 25 times
    Authorizing property taxes on these seven intangibles

  12. Section 2

    Cal. Const. art. XII § 2   Cited 21 times

    Subject to statute and due process, the commission may establish its own procedures. Any commissioner as designated by the commission may hold a hearing or investigation or issue an order subject to commission approval. Cal. Const. art. XII § 2

  13. Section 5148 - Action to recover taxes levied on state-assessed property arising out of dispute as to assessment

    Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 5148   Cited 14 times

    Notwithstanding Section 5140, an action to recover taxes levied on state-assessed property arising out of a dispute as to an assessment made pursuant to Section 721, including a dispute as to valuation, assessment ratio, or allocation of value for assessment purposes, shall be brought under this section. In any action brought under this section, the following requirements shall apply: (a) The action shall be brought by the state assessee. There shall be a single complaint with all parties joined

  14. Section 3 - Value Approaches

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 18 § 3   Cited 31 times
    Defining income approach as "[t]he amount that investors would be willing to pay for the right to receive the income that the property would be expected to yield, with the risks attendant upon its receipt"

  15. Section 91500 - Purpose

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 17 § 91500   Cited 1 times

    This regulation establishes a statewide methodology for use by air pollution control and air quality management districts (Districts) when calculating the value of emission reduction credits from stationary, mobile, or area sources. As such, this regulation (1) provides a uniform exchange mechanism for stationary, mobile, and area source credits; and (2) provides for the use of credits as a compliance alternative for meeting specified District control requirements. The regulation is intended to ensure